WASHINGTON - And the leading Republican presidential candidate is ... none of the above.

The latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll found that nearly a quarter of Republicans are unwilling to back top-tier hopefuls Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, John McCain or Mitt Romney, and no one candidate has emerged as the clear front-runner among Christian evangelicals. Such dissatisfaction underscores the volatility of the 2008 GOP nomination fight.

In sharp contrast, the Democratic race remains static, with Hillary Rodham Clinton holding a sizable lead over Barack Obama. The New York senator, who is white, also outpaces her Illinois counterpart, who is black, among black and Hispanic Democrats, according to a combined sample of two months of polls.

A half year before voting begins, the survey shows the White House race is far more wide open on the Republican side than on the Democratic. The uneven enthusiasm about the fields also is reflected in fundraising in which Democrats outraised Republicans $80 million to $50 million from April through June, continuing a trend from the year's first three months.

"Democrats are reasonably comfortable with the range of choices. The Democratic attitude is that three or four of these guys would be fine," David Redlawsk, a University of Iowa political scientist. "The Republicans don't have that; particularly among the conservatives there's a real split. They just don't see candidates who reflect their interests and who they also view as viable."

More Republicans have become apathetic about their options over the past month.

A hefty 23 percent can't or won't say which candidate they would back, a jump from the 14 percent who took a pass in June.

Giuliani's popularity continued to decline steadily as he faced a spate of headline headaches, came under increased scrutiny and saw the potential entry of Thompson in the mix; his support is at 21 percent compared with 27 percent in June and 35 percent in March.

The former New York mayor is running virtually even with Thompson, who has become a threat without even officially entering the race. The actor and former Tennessee senator has stayed steady at 19 percent. McCain, the Arizona senator who is revamping his nearly broke campaign, clocked in a bit lower at 15 percent, while Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, remained at 11 percent.

None of the top candidates has a clear lead among Christian evangelicals, a critical part of the GOP base that has had considerable sway in past Republican primaries. Giuliani, a thrice-married backer of abortion rights and gay rights, had 20 percent support — roughly even with Thompson and McCain who have one divorce each in their pasts. Romney, a Mormon who has been married for three decades, was in the single digits.

Among the legions of undecided Republicans is Barbara Skogman, 72, a retired legal assistant from Cedar Rapids, Iowa. She isn't at all excited about any of the prospects.

"I'm looking for a strong honest person. Do you know of any?" she joked. She had an easy time detailing why she was queasy about each of the most serious contenders. "Isn't that sad?" Then she reached a conclusion: "I just don't know."

Andrew E. Smith, a polling expert at the University of New Hampshire, said the number of voters in flux is no surprise, given that the primaries aren't for another six months. "People really don't decide who to vote for until the last couple months or days," he said.

On the Democratic side, 13 percent declined to back a candidate, and of those who picked a candidate, some may be willing to change their minds.

Barbara Hicks, 29, an English tutor in Arlington, Va., said her friends got her to lean toward former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards but she said, "It's not set in stone. ... I don't favor him very, very strongly."

The only other sign that Democrats are at all agitated about their choices is the continued support for Al Gore, the former vice president and 2000 Democratic presidential nominee who says he's not running. His popularity has slid some to 15 percent.

Otherwise, Clinton kept her strong advantage over Obama; her backers accounted for 36 percent of Democrats to his 20 percent, while support for Edwards remained essentially unchanged at 11 percent.

While neither Obama nor Edwards has threatened Clinton in national polls, both are giving her a chase in other areas. Obama leads her in fundraising for the primary and Edwards is running stronger in Iowa.

Nationally, the combined sample found Clinton has the edge among black Democrats, with 46 percent of their support to Obama's 33 percent. Her advantage is even wider among Hispanics; she has the support of 45 percent of them to Obama's 17 percent. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, whose mother was Mexican, had the backing of just 5 percent of Hispanics and virtually no support among blacks.

The AP-Ipsos poll was conducted by telephone July 9-11 with 1,004 adults, including 346 Republicans and 477 Democrats. The margin of sampling error for the full sample is plus or minus 3 percentage points, plus or minus 5.5 percentage points for Republicans and 4.5 percentage points for Democrats. For the combined June and July samples, the margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points for Republicans and plus or minus 3 percentage points for Democrats.

First Choice for Republican Presidential Nomination in 2008
(Based on Republicans/Independents Who Lean Republican)
July 12-15, 2007

With
Gingrich
Without
Gingrich

%
%

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani
30
33

Former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson
20
21

Arizona Senator John McCain
16
16

Former Massachusetts Senator Mitt Romney
8
8

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich
7
–

Texas Congressman Ron Paul
3
3

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee
2
2

Kansas Senator Sam Brownback
2
2

Former Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson
1
1

California Congressman Duncan Hunter
1
1

Former Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo
*
*

Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel
*
*

Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore
*
*

Other
1
1

None/No opinion
10
11

* = Less than 0.5%

“Other” includes candidates asked about, but who have not announced an official running.

According to the original ballot preferences which include Gingrich, support for the top-three ranked Republicans is virtually identical to where it was in early July, and has varied little since mid-June. The most significant change has been the near doubling of support for Thompson from 11% in early June to 19% in mid-June.

recxjake

07-17-2007, 11:31 AM

The poll you posted was from July 9-11, the one I posted was from July 12-15.....

StcChief

07-17-2007, 02:04 PM

Too early to tell.

Calcountry

07-17-2007, 02:27 PM

I DEMAND A RECOUNT! That poll was obviously influenced by Jeb Bush

mlyonsd

07-17-2007, 04:51 PM

If I had to choose between "Undecided" and "Clinton" on a ballot that choice would be easy.

Mr. Kotter

07-18-2007, 07:49 AM

Two words:

Fred Thompson

;)

Cochise

07-18-2007, 08:24 AM

There are a couple of good candidates in the race; unfortunately they are minor.

noa

07-18-2007, 11:41 AM

Two words:

Fred Thompson

;)

Kotter, you should check out the New Republic this week, if its available near you. Thompson is the coverboy and there's a long, interesting article on his candidacy and his "masculine mystique," that appeals to the Republican party.

Mr. Kotter

07-18-2007, 11:44 AM

Kotter, you should check out the New Republic this week, if its available near you. Thompson is the coverboy and there's a long, interesting article on his candidacy and his "masculine mystique," that appeals to the Republican party.

Thanks, noa. :thumb:

I try to check out New Republic, as it's on my reading list....but when I'm busy, I don't make it there.

chagrin

07-18-2007, 11:52 AM

This doesn't even matter now, you know that

Pitt Gorilla

07-18-2007, 02:06 PM

Kotter, you should check out the New Republic this week, if its available near you. Thompson is the coverboy and there's a long, interesting article on his candidacy and his "masculine mystique," that appeals to the Republican party.
That's why kotter digs him.

Mr. Kotter

07-18-2007, 02:14 PM

That's why kotter digs him.

Using that logic, I expect you will launch your Richard Simmons/Boy George for President crusade sometime soon.

;)

Ugly Duck

07-18-2007, 04:45 PM

The poll you posted was from July 9-11, the one I posted was from July 12-15.....

Yeah.... but your poll didn't include the Leading Republican Candidate>>> "None of the Above!!"

July 19, 2007
Records Show Ex-Senator’s Work for Family Planning Unit
By JO BECKER
Billing records show that former Senator Fred Thompson spent nearly 20 hours working as a lobbyist on behalf of a group seeking to ease restrictive federal rules on abortion counseling in the 1990s, even though he recently said he did not recall doing any work for the organization.

According to records from Arent Fox, the law firm based in Washington where Mr. Thompson worked part-time from 1991 to 1994, he charged the organization, the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, about $5,000 for work he did in 1991 and 1992. The records show that Mr. Thompson, a probable Republican candidate for president in 2008, spent much of that time in telephone conferences with the president of the group, and on three occasions he reported lobbying administration officials on its behalf.

Mr. Thompson’s work for the family planning agency has become an issue because he is positioning himself as a faithful conservative who is opposed to abortion.

Earlier this month, Mr. Thompson disputed accounts by the group’s former president and others, saying through a spokesman that he had “no recollection” of doing anything to aid the group’s efforts to overturn a rule banning federally financed clinics from dispensing information about abortion to pregnant women. At most, said Mr. Thompson’s spokesman, Mark Corallo, he “may have been consulted by one of the firm’s partners who represented this group.”

Yesterday, Mr. Corallo said the family planning group was an Arent Fox client.

“The firm consulted with Fred Thompson,” he said. “It is not unusual for a lawyer to give counsel at the request of colleagues, even when they personally disagree with the issue.”

From the time he was elected to the Senate from Tennessee in 1994 until he left office in early 2003, Mr. Thompson voted for every abortion restriction measure as well as a ban on government financed abortion for Defense Department personnel. He has also said that he opposes the Roe v. Wade decision because it establishes a federal right to abortion, an issue that he says should be left to the states.

But his record on abortion has not always been as clear cut. In questionnaires Mr. Thompson answered during his 1994 Senate campaign, for instance, he checked a box stating that he believed abortion should be legal under any circumstances during the first three months of pregnancy and said, “I do not believe that abortion should be criminalized.” He has also opposed a constitutional amendment banning all abortion, also on the grounds of states’ rights.

But in answering questions by the conservative Tennessee group Flare during the 1994 campaign, Mr. Thompson promised not to support tax-financed clinics that recommend “abortion as a method of birth control.”

His representation of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, which was trying to overturn the ban on abortion counseling, put him at odds with the anti-abortion movement, which considered the ban a crucial victory.

The billing records from Arent Fox show that Mr. Thompson, who charged about $250 an hour, spoke 22 times with Judith DeSarno, who was then president of the family planning group. In addition, he lobbied “administration officials” for a total of 3.3 hours, the records show, although they do not specify which officials he met with or what was said.

The billing records, along with meeting minutes from the association, show that Arent Fox was hired to help overturn the ban.

The family planning association became a client of Arent Fox through Michael Barnes, a former Democratic congressman who was then a partner at the firm. The firm’s current chairman, Marc Fleischaker, said, “Regardless of whatever the political ramifications are, Fred was being a good colleague by helping out one of the firm’s partner.”

After his work for the family planning group was made public earlier this month, Mr. Thompson sought to distance his own positions from those that he took on behalf of clients he represented as a lobbyist and a lawyer.

In a column published on the conservative blog Powerline, Mr. Thompson wrote that in light of lawyer-client confidentiality, it would not be appropriate for him to respond to those who are “dredging up clients — or another lawyer’s clients — that I may have represented or consulted with” 15 or 20 years ago.

If “a client has a legal and ethical right to take a position, then you may appropriately represent him as long as he does not lie or otherwise conduct himself improperly while you are representing him,” he wrote.

He continued, “In almost 30 years of practicing law I must have had hundreds of clients and thousands of conversations about legal matters. Like any good lawyer, I would always try to give my best, objective, and professional opinion on any legal question presented to me.”

wazu

07-18-2007, 11:09 PM

Two words:

Fred Thompson

;)

No thanks. This Republican field was looking really good until Thompson jumped in the mix. I can't see a single thing that he offers that isn't already available, and it's not like he has a good track record to stand behind.

Mr. Kotter

07-18-2007, 11:15 PM

No thanks. This Republican field was looking really good until Thompson jumped in the mix. I can't see a single thing that he offers that isn't already available, and it's not like he has a good track record to stand behind.

Except, something called "electability." :)

To each his own; go ahead and waste your vote on Paul....or worse, Clinton. :shrug:

Despite what recxjakeboy thinks, working to "....ease restrictive federal rules on abortion counseling...." won't hurt him with most.

BTW, you got a friggin' link, Jake.....damn. Or are you just embarrassed by the Newmax origins or some such similar crap? :rolleyes:

wazu

07-18-2007, 11:22 PM

To each his own; go ahead and waste your vote on Paul....or worse, Clinton. :shrug:

Despite what recxjakeboy thinks, working to "....ease restrictive federal rules on abortion counseling...." won't hurt him with most.

Maybe it won't, but in my opinion he is the hardcore neo-con the Republican party has been searching for, and has now found. I believe Thompson will get the nomination, and once again I'll be reminded that although I am drawn to traditional conservative values, the truth is that the Republican party no longer stands for that. It is now a party of big government and imperialism, with absolutely zero fiscal responsibility.

I would vote for Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee, or Mitt Romney. I won't vote for any Democrat no matter who they nominate. If the Republicans refuse to nominate a conservative I'll just vote Libertarian again.

Mr. Kotter

07-18-2007, 11:30 PM

Maybe it won't, but in my opinion he is the hardcore neo-con the Republican party has been searching for, and has now found. I believe Thompson will get the nomination, and once again I'll be reminded that although I am drawn to traditional conservative values, the truth is that the Republican party no longer stands for that. It is now a party of big government and imperialism, with absolutely zero fiscal responsibility.

I would vote for Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee, or Mitt Romney. I won't vote for any Democrat no matter who they nominate. If the Republicans refuse to nominate a conservative I'll just vote Libertarian again.

Paul and Huckabee have NO chance. Zero. Zilch. Nada. In a perfect world, maybe they would. Romney could earn my vote--especially if Hillary is the opponent. If it's Obama on the other side, I'll have to wait and see.

However, if you doubt Thompson's "conservative" credentials--not Neo-con--then you are buying what the snake-oil salesman are sellin'....IMHO. :shrug:

Logical

07-18-2007, 11:30 PM

Maybe it won't, but in my opinion he is the hardcore neo-con the Republican party has been searching for, and has now found. I believe Thompson will get the nomination, and once again I'll be reminded that although I am drawn to traditional conservative values, the truth is that the Republican party no longer stands for that. It is now a party of big government and imperialism, with absolutely zero fiscal responsibility.

I would vote for Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee, or Mitt Romney. I won't vote for any Democrat no matter who they nominate. If the Republicans refuse to nominate a conservative I'll just vote Libertarian again.And I will join you this time around.

wazu

07-18-2007, 11:35 PM

Paul and Huckabee have NO chance.

When you say this, it only serves to illustrate how warped the Republican party has become. It won't stop me from voting for Ron Paul in the primary. I'd rather vote for the right candidate with no chance than somebody I don't believe in.

Mr. Kotter

07-18-2007, 11:41 PM

When you say this, it only serves to illustrate how warped the Republican party has become. It won't stop me from voting for Ron Paul in the primary. I'd rather vote for the right candidate with no chance than somebody I don't believe in.

Presidential campaigns, for good or bad, have become about electability. The Republicans understand that--at least they have during the last 10 Presidential elections or so. Democrats, if they nominate Hillary, will once again demonstrate they don't.

If it makes you happy to vote your conscience over pragmatic considerations, I say...good for you. :shrug:

wazu

07-18-2007, 11:52 PM

Presidential campaigns, for good or bad, have become about electability. The Republicans understand that--at least they have during the last 10 Presidential elections or so. Democrats, if they nominate Hillary, will once again demonstrate they don't.

If it makes you happy to vote your conscience over pragmatic considerations, I say...good for you. :shrug:

I was a McCain supporter in 2000. McCain would have stomped Gore into the ground. It wouldn't have required the courts getting involved. Bush was the neo-con, though, therefore he was the Republican nominee. "Pragmatic considerations" had nothing to do with it.

Ron Paul would win in a landslide if nominated. His conservative values would make him the obvious choice for Republicans when compared to Hillary, and his ideals and social libertarianism would tear away a huge chunk of the Democratic faithful. I may be supporting the only Republican candidate that would actually win in 2008.

Mr. Kotter

07-18-2007, 11:59 PM

I was a McCain supporter in 2000. McCain would have stomped Gore into the ground. It wouldn't have required the courts getting involved. Bush was the neo-con, though, therefore he was the Republican nominee. "Pragmatic considerations" had nothing to do with it.

Ron Paul would win in a landslide if nominated. His conservative values would make him the obvious choice for Republicans when compared to Hillary, and his ideals and social libertarianism would tear away a huge chunk of the Democratic faithful. I may be supporting the only Republican candidate that would actually win in 2008.

I supported McCain, in the Republican primaries in 2000 also. I think Paul is a good guy, and a respectable politician. Some of his ideas are out there....but he's definitely a strong conservative.

You harbor obvious disdain for NeoCons. I'm no Neocon; again, I'm just being pragmatic. You seem convinced that Thompson is a NeoCon. I think he may share some of their ideology, but from what I've seen....he's no NeoCon. So if he ends up as the nominee, I'd suggest you really listen to what he says....rather than casting him as a NeoCon. In other words, don't let his critics....paint him as something he is not.

If, OTOH, you are convinced---please, just vote your conscience. You seem like a reasonable guy though....and I just think you've bought what his critics are telling you, without really looking at his record and stated position on issuses. At least, afaics. :hmmm:

ChiefaRoo

07-19-2007, 12:03 AM

Here's what I want out of my Presidential candidate for 2008.

1) No socialized national medicine
2) Strong aggressive attacking of AQ and terrorist Muslims wherever in the world they are via the military, political pressure and broad based alliances and/or proxys.
3) Expand the size of the military - more soldiers and marines so the troops rotations slow down
3) Get control of the US's borders via strong border enforcement and streamline the legal immigration system so migrant workers can come in and work legally and then go home or get in line to apply for citizenship.
4) No tax increases
5) Re-establish our damaged ties with our democratic allies around the world while not pandering to the socialist weenies that make up a good portion of the EU. Support our democratic allies like England, Australia, Japan, Poland, Eastern Europe in general.
6) More Nuclear Power Plants
7) Stricter control of Coal plant carbon emissions but build more of them
8) Put a big stick up Hugo Chavez's figurative ass so he always feels, uncomfortable
9) Tell Iran (through back channels) that if they do develop a Nuke we will blockade them so they can't bring in refined gas. If they threaten to use said Nuke or if they give said Nuke to AQ types they will cease to exist as a nation. When Iran whines about it in public we deny we ever said it.
10) Publically back struggling Democracies around the world with money, guns and political support as necessary - I.E. Lebanon
11) Work as partners with the Chinese to re-adjust our trade deficit with them while at the same time working to move them towards becoming a full democracy while they grow their economy and clean up their devastated environment.
12) Do what we can to support Democracy in Russia while working strongly with the Russians against terrorism. Keep an eye on that Weasel Putin.

None of the Dems will do these thing. The Republicans you ask? Maybe Romney can do it, maybe Giuliani can but right now I'm hoping Thompson will.

Logical

07-19-2007, 12:40 AM

On ChiefaRoo's theme here's what I want out of my Presidential candidate for 2008.

1) A National Medical Insurance Regulations that ensure all are covered
2) Strong aggressive attacking of AQ and terrorist Muslims wherever in the world they are via the military, political pressure and broad based alliances and/or proxys.
3) Expand the size of the military - more soldiers and marines but out of Iraq except for a very limited presence
3) Get control of the US's borders via strong border enforcement and streamline the legal immigration system so migrant workers can come in and work legally and then go home or get in line to apply for citizenship.
4) Minor Tax increases on those with incomes over $200K or 300K per married couple.
5) Re-establish our damaged ties with our democratic allies around the world. Gain EU support and that of democratic allies like England, Australia, Japan, Poland, Eastern Europe in general should be further strengthened.
6) More Nuclear Power Plants
7) Stricter control of Coal plant carbon emissions but build more of them
8) Develop a solid relationship with Hugo Chavez and gain access to their vast oil reserves.
9) Tell Iran (through back channels) that if they do develop a Nuke we will blockade them so they can't bring in refined gas. If they threaten to use said Nuke or if they give said Nuke to AQ types they will cease to exist as a nation. When Iran whines about it in public we deny we ever said it.
10) Publically support developing democracies with financial aid and incentives but keep our troops home.
11) Work as partners with the Chinese to re-adjust our trade deficit with them while at the same time working to move them towards becoming a full democracy while they grow their economy and clean up their devastated environment.
12) Do what we can to support Democracy in Russia while working strongly with the Russians against terrorism.
13) Legalize drugs but tax them heavily
14) Push for term limits on Congress of 3 terms, 2 terms for Senators
15) A big push for a yearly balanced budget

Of course no candidate will do this.

ChiefaRoo

07-19-2007, 01:06 AM

On ChiefaRoo's theme here's what I want out of my Presidential candidate for 2008.

1) A National Medical Insurance Regulations that ensure all are covered
2) Strong aggressive attacking of AQ and terrorist Muslims wherever in the world they are via the military, political pressure and broad based alliances and/or proxys.
3) Expand the size of the military - more soldiers and marines but out of Iraq except for a very limited presence
3) Get control of the US's borders via strong border enforcement and streamline the legal immigration system so migrant workers can come in and work legally and then go home or get in line to apply for citizenship.
4) Minor Tax increases on those with incomes over $200K or 300K per married couple.
5) Re-establish our damaged ties with our democratic allies around the world. Gain EU support and that of democratic allies like England, Australia, Japan, Poland, Eastern Europe in general should be further strengthened.
6) More Nuclear Power Plants
7) Stricter control of Coal plant carbon emissions but build more of them
8) Develop a solid relationship with Hugo Chavez and gain access to their vast oil reserves.
9) Tell Iran (through back channels) that if they do develop a Nuke we will blockade them so they can't bring in refined gas. If they threaten to use said Nuke or if they give said Nuke to AQ types they will cease to exist as a nation. When Iran whines about it in public we deny we ever said it.
10) Publically support developing democracies with financial aid and incentives but keep our troops home.
11) Work as partners with the Chinese to re-adjust our trade deficit with them while at the same time working to move them towards becoming a full democracy while they grow their economy and clean up their devastated environment.
12) Do what we can to support Democracy in Russia while working strongly with the Russians against terrorism.
13) Legalize drugs but tax them heavily
14) Push for term limits on Congress of 3 terms, 2 terms for Senators
15) A big push for a yearly balanced budget

Of course no candidate will do this.

Legalize drugs? Hah, so you are one of those yeah man ,cheech and chong neuvo hippie types. It all makes sense now.

By the way Chavez is a dictator and a meglomaniac. You can't deal with him anymore than you could of dealt with Castro. The key is to destabilize his government so he gets toppled.

Logical

07-19-2007, 01:15 AM

...
By the way Chavez is a dictator and a meglomaniac. You can't deal with him anymore than you could of dealt with Castro. The key is to destabilize his government so he gets toppled.Yes because that worked so well with Castro, I guess you want to make him a superhero to his people and entrench him for life like we did Castro and his brothers.

ChiefaRoo

07-19-2007, 01:16 AM

Yes because that worked so well with Castro, I guess you want to make him a superhero to his people and entrench him for life like we did Castro and his brothers.

I want to Noriega him.

Logical

07-19-2007, 01:44 AM

I want to Noriega him.I believe Noriega was nice enough to commit crimes in the US that allowed us to basically forcibly extradite him. Don't expect Chavez to be so obliging or stupid.

Ugly Duck

07-19-2007, 01:40 PM

The most significant change has been the near doubling of support for Thompson

Dang it, recx..... you guyz better get it together before Rudy goes down the friggin toilet. DO SOMETHING!!

"Giuliani's popularity continued to decline steadily as he faced a spate of headline headaches, came under increased scrutiny and saw the potential entry of Thompson in the mix"

-Not an abortionist
-No communist health care
-Truly close the border
-Knows that leaving Iraq bereft of a viable government is not an option
-Cut domestic spending across the board
-Keep the Bush tax cuts.

Cochise

07-19-2007, 01:54 PM

Yes because that worked so well with Castro, I guess you want to make him a superhero to his people and entrench him for life like we did Castro and his brothers.

Once the Soviet missles left town, who gave a rat's ass about Castro?

wazu

07-19-2007, 05:28 PM

I supported McCain, in the Republican primaries in 2000 also. I think Paul is a good guy, and a respectable politician. Some of his ideas are out there....but he's definitely a strong conservative.

You harbor obvious disdain for NeoCons. I'm no Neocon; again, I'm just being pragmatic. You seem convinced that Thompson is a NeoCon. I think he may share some of their ideology, but from what I've seen....he's no NeoCon. So if he ends up as the nominee, I'd suggest you really listen to what he says....rather than casting him as a NeoCon. In other words, don't let his critics....paint him as something he is not.

If, OTOH, you are convinced---please, just vote your conscience. You seem like a reasonable guy though....and I just think you've bought what his critics are telling you, without really looking at his record and stated position on issuses. At least, afaics. :hmmm:

I'll always listen. I was so pissed with what the Republicans produced in 2000 for a nominee that I may be overreacting. Over the past year I was feeling like the Republicans had good potential nominees, but heard a lot of "party-line" Republicans bashing them for reasons I couldn't really grasp. I finally decided it must just be that they were waiting for a true, dyed-in-the-wool neo-con to join the picture so that we could re-live 2000 all over again. Once Fred Thompson entered the picture the same crowd began gushing over him and I may have leaped to my conclusions a little too quickly.

Like I said, I'll listen, but I'm very skeptical at this point, and disappointed that with so many candidates that I actually liked, the reality is I believe Thompson will probably get the nomination instead.

CHIEF4EVER

07-19-2007, 05:30 PM

WHERE IS THE EFFING RIGHT LEANING LIBERTARIAN THAT I CAN GET BEHIND? AAAAAAAAAAARGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

end of outburst

Calcountry

07-19-2007, 07:02 PM

1) A National Medical Insurance Regulations that ensure all are covered
would that include illegal aliens?
2) Strong aggressive attacking of AQ and terrorist Muslims wherever in the world they are via the military, political pressure and broad based alliances and/or proxys.
This would include Iraq.
3) Expand the size of the military - more soldiers and marines but out of Iraq except for a very limited presence
Precisely what would this "limited presence" mission entail?
3) Get control of the US's borders via strong border enforcement and streamline the legal immigration system so migrant workers can come in and work legally and then go home or get in line to apply for citizenship.
Couldn't agree more, it should be #1 on your list though.
4) Minor Tax increases on those with incomes over $200K or 300K per married couple.
No problem with this, i don't make that much so screw you rich Democrat attorneys.
5) Re-establish our damaged ties with our democratic allies around the world. Gain EU support and that of democratic allies like England, Australia, Japan, Poland, Eastern Europe in general should be further strengthened.
If the truth is known, it has never been stronger than it is now, just media hype. Mom you're just jealous were the beasty boys.
6) More Nuclear Power Plants
agreed
7) Stricter control of Coal plant carbon emissions but build more of them
getting sleepy, yahn.....
8) Develop a solid relationship with Hugo Chavez and gain access to their vast oil reserves.
:whackit:
9) Tell Iran (through back channels) that if they do develop a Nuke we will blockade them so they can't bring in refined gas. If they threaten to use said Nuke or if they give said Nuke to AQ types they will cease to exist as a nation. When Iran whines about it in public we deny we ever said it.
I suppose this would be o.k. if we didn't have so many troops withing range of this said nuke. What would you do if they nuked 20k of our troops?
10) Publically support developing democracies with financial aid and incentives but keep our troops home.
Checkbook diplomacy? right.
11) Work as partners with the Chinese to re-adjust our trade deficit with them while at the same time working to move them towards becoming a full democracy while they grow their economy and clean up their devastated environment.
That ought to help global warming now.
12) Do what we can to support Democracy in Russia while working strongly with the Russians against terrorism.
Look deep into Putins soul
13) Legalize drugs but tax them heavily
Especially steroids, so we can enjoy our gladiators in peace.
14) Push for term limits on Congress of 3 terms, 2 terms for Senators
Been there, tried that in 94 with the Contract with America, whatever happened to that?
15) A big push for a yearly balanced budget
This has been Bush's biggest failing, spending like a drunken sailor while at the same time claiming to be a conservative.

Of course no candidate will do this.

Not if you don't run Jim

BucEyedPea

07-19-2007, 07:20 PM

WHERE IS THE EFFING RIGHT LEANING LIBERTARIAN THAT I CAN GET BEHIND? AAAAAAAAAAARGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

Fred Thompson is not the candidate the social conservatives wanted....

http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/198146.aspx

The media has made Fred Thompson into something he truly isn't. It is now almost August... and Fred Thompson has yet to jump into the race... what is he afraid of?

:spock:

What's there to be afraid of? He's not even "running"....and he is at LEAST in third in nearly every poll that has been taken.

He understands that it will be a three man race....once he enters...and as long as his polling numbers stay close to that....he'll be best served to sit-out as much of this pathetic and prolonged 18 month media circus/bullshit walz that we now call a "Presidential campagin."

He'll come in and put your boy in his place soon enough. ;)

patteeu

07-20-2007, 11:07 AM

I was a McCain supporter in 2000. McCain would have stomped Gore into the ground. It wouldn't have required the courts getting involved. Bush was the neo-con, though, therefore he was the Republican nominee. "Pragmatic considerations" had nothing to do with it.

Ron Paul would win in a landslide if nominated. His conservative values would make him the obvious choice for Republicans when compared to Hillary, and his ideals and social libertarianism would tear away a huge chunk of the Democratic faithful. I may be supporting the only Republican candidate that would actually win in 2008.

:rolleyes: Bush wasn't a neocon.

His presidency has been influenced by neocons to be sure, but Bush wasn't one of them going in. He was a tax-cutter and a social conservative who, IMO, was more comfortable with big government than a conservative ought to be.

The fact is that McCain is and always has been more neocon than Bush. McCain was Bill Kristol's candidate.

Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani signs autographs following his town-hall-style meeting at Brandt Co. in Davenport on Thursday night. The event was standing room only with approximately 300 people attending Mr. Giuliani's appearance.

DAVENPORT -- He took off his suit jacket, rolled up his sleeves and made a joke with perfect comedic timing.

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani told the crowd of about 300 people, "I'm here because I'm running for president of the United States." He paused, then said, "Did you know that?"

The audience laughed. It set the tone for the Thursday town hall event at The Brandt Co. in Davenport: relaxed and informative.

When so many candidates come to Iowa, sometimes a candidate's personality is the final selling point.

"He's very personable," said Jenna Bieri, a Davenport native and student at Syracuse University in New York.

Her mother, Laurie Bieri, of Davenport, said, "We were choosing between him and Mitt (Romney)."

Since he was New York mayor during the Sept. 11 attacks, Mr. Giuliani said he has the leadership experience to do the impossible.

Pointing out Iowa's efforts to expand the use of ethanol and biofuels in the state, Mr. Giuliani said he wants to push use of those fuels across the country.

For every percent increase in producing more ethanol, Mr. Giuliani said, "We reduce our reliance on foreign oil from places that hate us."

He called for producing more nuclear, solar and wind power. By pushing for these solutions, maybe the country could become energy independent, he said. "It will be a way of winning the terrorist war on us because it will take a major amount of pressure on us away from them."

He talked about how some people fear that workers in China and India will take jobs away from Americans. He argued that once the United States makes more ethanol, nuclear, solar and wind power, the country could sell those products to China and India.

Later, Mattison Barickman, 11, of Bettendorf, boldly raised his hand and asked the candidate, "If elected president, how would you change the world other than China and India?"

"I would try to change the view that the rest of the world has of the United States," Mr. Giuliani responded.

He said the country should defend its reputation and promote freedom.

After the event, Mattison said he asked the question because the country is having some problems and needs a president who can change the world. He said he thought Mr. Giuliani had a great chance of becoming president.

Mattison's Rivermont Collegiate teacher, Leigh Ann Schroeder, said she brought Mattison to the event because of his interest in politics. Clutching Mr. Giuliani's book, "Leadership," Ms. Schroeder said she supported him because of his efforts during 9/11.

What's there to be afraid of? He's not even "running"....and he is at LEAST in third in nearly every poll that has been taken.

He understands that it will be a three man race....once he enters...and as long as his polling numbers stay close to that....he'll be best served to sit-out as much of this pathetic and prolonged 18 month media circus/bullshit walz that we now call a "Presidential campagin."

...This much of your post I agree with completely.

Ugly Duck

07-21-2007, 12:43 AM

Lotta polls being posted here.... looks like Rudy is the frontrunner unless None-of-the-Above is included. Heck, None-of-the-Above hasn't raised a dime yet and is totally being out-spent by every other Republican candidate.... yet he is the people's choice hands down. These polls need to include him if they proclaim to test the waters of the Republican psyche.

Mr. Kotter

07-21-2007, 08:19 AM

Lotta polls being posted here.... looks like Rudy is the frontrunner unless None-of-the-Above is included. Heck, None-of-the-Above hasn't raised a dime yet and is totally being out-spent by every other Republican candidate.... yet he is the people's choice hands down. These polls need to include him if they proclaim to test the waters of the Republican psyche.

Yeah, not only that....this None-of-the-Above dude/dudette would likely lead any Democratic polls that included him, as well.

:hmmm:

BucEyedPea

07-21-2007, 08:50 AM

:rolleyes: Bush wasn't a neocon.
His presidency has been influenced by neocons to be sure, but Bush wasn't one of them going in. He was a tax-cutter and a social conservative who, IMO, was more comfortable with big government than a conservative ought to be.

Yeah well Bush wasn't a conservative going in to be sure as well.
You even said so yourself as a reason you didn't vote for him in 2000.

But, really, pat, how can you say this about Bush and then say RR was a NeoCon? I don't understand you. I thought you were a simple guy.

Bush was already more pro-big-govt than RR going in witness his "compassionate conservative" label he gave himself.

Just because RR had NCs in his administration did not make his admin decidedly NC. RR also had paleo conservatives like Buchanan, Doug Bandow and Paul Craig Roberts in his administrtion too. Both camps were simply united on fighting communism at that time so the distinctions were blurred and he had a Dem congress.

Adept Havelock

07-21-2007, 10:56 AM

Yeah, not only that....this None-of-the-Above dude/dudette would likely lead any Democratic polls that included him, as well.

:hmmm:

Who knew there were so many wonks that are fans of "Brewster's Millions"?

BTW- Anybody want to start a betting pool on how long jake keeps up his cut-and-paste posting style? If Fred comes in and takes a good chunk of Rudy's support (as I fully expect), I think we'll see entire cut-and-paste threads of Rudy talking points. Oh, wait, we already do. LMAO

patteeu

07-21-2007, 11:44 AM

Yeah well Bush wasn't a conservative going in to be sure as well.
You even said so yourself as a reason you didn't vote for him in 2000.

But, really, pat, how can you say this about Bush and then say RR was a NeoCon? I don't understand you. I thought you were a simple guy.

Bush was already more pro-big-govt than RR going in witness his "compassionate conservative" label he gave himself.

Just because RR had NCs in his administration did not make his admin decidedly NC. RR also had paleo conservatives like Buchanan, Doug Bandow and Paul Craig Roberts in his administrtion too. Both camps were simply united on fighting communism at that time so the distinctions were blurred and he had a Dem congress.

There are at least 3 different ways we could understand the term "neoconservative".

1) Original Neocons: The actual group of mostly-Jewish, former leftists who, in many cases, became reformed conservatives when they were "mugged by reality" as well as their close associates. People like the Kristols, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, several aides to Scoop Jackson, etc. When you talk about former Trotskytes or when you say that they are influenced by Straus, this is the group you are talking about. The members of this group shared a strong sense of anti-communism and favored a strong military and an assertive, internationalist foreign policy as a strategy in the cold war. By the end of the Reagan term, many from this group had become mainstream conservative in domestic affairs (e.g. small government, low taxes) as well. Some remained liberal on these issues. This is a pretty small group of people. This is how I used to try to use the word. Neither Reagan nor Bush are in this group although Reagan is also reformed from liberal roots.

2) Foreign Policy Neocons: The much larger group who agree with the Original Neocons on the value of a strong military and an assertive, internationalist foreign policy in the war against the worldwide radical islamic insurgency. On other issues, these "neocons" are as varied as the Republican party. They can be tax cutters or tax raisers. They can be spenders or deficit hawks. Some are for affirmative action and some are against it. I'm a neocon by this definition. As is GWB although I'm not convinced that he was in it before 9/11. We'll never know what Ronald Reagan's position on the GWoT would have been so we can agree to disagree but I believe he'd be a lot closer to Bush than to Paul so I think he belongs in this group too. I've been using this definition more, lately, in order to conform with the today's more common usage.

3) Bogeyman Neocons: This is the very large group whose members have some connection with at least one neocon. Through that connection, any bad trait of any neocon can be attributed to each and every one of this group. [/color=blue]This is the definition you seem to use[/color]

Example:

+ Larry thinks we should stick it out in Iraq now that we are there.

+ Neocons think we should stick it out in Iraq. (This makes Larry a neocon)

+ One neocon named Nick (who, btw, thinks we should stick it out in Iraq) once wrote a college paper on the negative societal costs of laws against prostitution and another neocon named Ned (who, btw, thinks we should stick it out in Iraq), was once busted for picking up a prostitute. (This makes Larry pro-prostitution)

==> Therefore, Larry is a (Bogeyman) Neocon and it's a safe assumption that he's been influenced by trotsky and straus and that he's soft on prostitution!!

Pro big government has absolutely nothing to do with neoconservatism except in the sense that it takes big government to maintain a big military. Ronald Reagan was no different than Bush in this respect. In fact, from my pov, Reagan showed more urgency in growing the size of the military.